You might think of your outgoing transfers as head cases, malcontents, dead
weight, or simply bad fits, but one thing they shouldn’t be is "chattel".
If schools are going to put these kinds of restrictions on transfers, I’m even
less inclined to be sympathetic when the programs complain about unsigned prospects
changing their minds and requiring a bit of hand-holding during the recruiting
homestretch.

While we’re on the subject of chattel and recruiting, let’s come back to the
story about South Carolina and Tucker High School. It’s always good to get
a laugh at the expense of South Carolina and Spurrier, but I’m not really concerned
about South Carolina’s blunder. Recruiting is about relationships, and they
blew it. I’m more interested in the high school coach declaring his school off-limits
for a specific college program.

It’s fine for Tucker’s coach to say that the Gamecocks are "no longer
welcome" at the high school. It’s his decision who he welcomes into his
office, and it’s a bridge burned. But it is most certainly not his place to
dictate that "South Carolina will not be recruiting any more Tucker players."

It’s easy to accept and get behind since we’re talking about South Carolina,
but a high school coach deciding who may not recruit a prospect seems about
as meddlesome as the college coaches putting restrictions on transfers. Of course
a prospect might and often does seek the counsel of a coach, and that’s the
prospect’s choice, but a coach only does a disservice to his players by inserting
himself as a gatekeeper before the fact. It’s not his call whether or not South
Carolina recruits any more Tucker players.

Comments

One Response to 'Early signing day, transfers, and gatekeepers'

I’m sure if a player is being recruited by Conf. USA and Sun Belt schools, and USC comes calling, he will do his due diligence and give the player proper access if he so requests. He basically had to do this as a “standing up for his players” gesture.